EFFECT OF SLOPING GROUND ON STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF RCC BUILDING UNDER SEISMIC LOAD 1 SUJIT KUMAR, 2 Dr. VIVEK GARG, 3 Dr. ABHAY SHARMA 1 Post Graduate Student, Structural Engineering Department of Civil Engineering, MANIT, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India, Email: [email protected]2 Assistant Professor, Civil Engineering Department, MANIT, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India, Email: [email protected]3 Associate Professor, Civil Engineering Department, MANIT, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India, Email: [email protected]ABSTRACT Previous studies emphasize for proper planning and construction practices of multistoried buildings on sloping ground. However, in normal design practice the designers generally ignore the effect of sloping ground on the structural behavior of the building. The seismic analysis of a G+4 storey RCC building on varying slope angles i.e., 7.5 0 and 15 0 is studied and compared with the same on the flat ground. The seismic forces are considered as per IS: 1893‐2002. The structural analysis software STAAD Pro v8i is used to study the effect of sloping ground on building performance during earthquake. Seismic analysis has been done using Linear Static method. The analysis is carried out to evaluate the effect of sloping ground on structural forces. The horizontal reaction, bending moment in footings and axial force, bending moment in columns are critically analyzed to quantify the effects of various sloping ground. It has been observed that the footing columns of shorter height attract more forces, because of a considerable increase in their stiffness, which in turn increases the horizontal force (i.e. shear) and bending moment significantly. Thus, the section of these columns should be designed for modified forces due to the effect of sloping ground. The present study emphasizes the need for proper designing of structure resting on sloping ground. Index Terms: Sloping ground, Seismic forces, RCC Building, Structural analysis, STAAD etc. 1. INTRODUCTION Earthquake is the most disastrous due to its unpredictability and huge power of devastation. Earthquakes themselves do not kill people, rather the colossal loss of human lives and properties occur due to the destruction of structures. Building structures collapse during severe earthquakes, and cause direct loss of human lives. Numerous research works have been directed worldwide in last few decades to investigate the cause of failure of different types of buildings under severe seismic excitations. Massive destruction of high‐rise as well as low‐ rise buildings in recent devastating earthquake proves that in developing counties like India, such investigation is the need of the hour. Hence, seismic behavior of asymmetric building structures has become a topic of worldwide active research. Many Investigations have been conducted on elastic and inelastic seismic behavior of asymmetric systems to find out the cause of seismic vulnerability of such structures. The purpose of the paper is to perform linear static analysis of medium height RC buildings and investigate the changes in structural behavior due to consideration of sloping ground. 1.1 SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF BUILDINGS ON SLOPES IN INDIA North and northeastern parts of India have large scales of hilly region, which are categorized under seismic zone IV and V. In this region the construction of multistory RC framed buildings on hill slopes has a popular and pressing demand, due to its economic growth and rapid urbanization. This growth in construction activity is adding increase in population density. While construction, it must be noted that Hill buildings are different from those in plains i.e., they are very irregular and unsymmetrical in horizontal and vertical planes, and torsionally coupled. Since there is scarcity of plain ground in hilly areas, it obligates the construction of buildings on slopes. During past earthquakes, reinforced concrete (RC) frame buildings that have columns of different heights within one storey, suffered more damage in the shorter columns as compared to taller columns in the same storey. One example of buildings with short columns in buildings on a sloping ground can be seen in the figure (1) given SUJIT KUMAR et al. DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2014 ISSN: 2348-4098 VOLUME 2 ISSUE 6 AUGUST 2014 (VER II) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY- www.ijset.in 1310
12
Embed
EFFECT OF SLOPING GROUND ON STRUCTURAL … · · 2014-09-01The structural analysis software STAAD Pro v8i is used to study the effect of sloping ground on building performance during
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Previous studies emphasize for proper planning and construction practices of multistoried buildings on sloping ground.However,innormaldesignpracticethedesignersgenerallyignoretheeffectofslopinggroundonthestructuralbehaviorofthe building. The seismic analysis of a G+4 storey RCC building on varying slope angles i.e., 7.50 and 150 is studied andcomparedwiththesameontheflatground.TheseismicforcesareconsideredasperIS:1893‐2002.Thestructuralanalysissoftware STAADPro v8i isused to study theeffect of sloping groundonbuildingperformanceduring earthquake. Seismicanalysis has been done using Linear Staticmethod. The analysis is carried out to evaluate the effect of sloping ground onstructural forces. The horizontal reaction, bending moment in footings and axial force, bending moment in columns arecriticallyanalyzedtoquantifytheeffectsofvariousslopingground.Ithasbeenobservedthatthefootingcolumnsofshorterheightattractmoreforces,becauseofaconsiderable increase intheirstiffness,whichinturnincreasesthehorizontalforce(i.e.shear)andbendingmomentsignificantly.Thus,thesectionofthesecolumnsshouldbedesignedformodifiedforcesduetothe effect of sloping ground. The present study emphasizes the need for proper designing of structure resting on slopingground.IndexTerms:Slopingground,Seismicforces,RCCBuilding,Structuralanalysis,STAADetc.1.INTRODUCTION
Earthquake is the most disastrous due to itsunpredictability and huge power of devastation.Earthquakes themselves do not kill people, rather thecolossal loss of human lives and properties occur due tothedestructionofstructures.Buildingstructurescollapseduringsevereearthquakes,andcausedirectlossofhumanlives. Numerous research works have been directedworldwide in last fewdecades to investigate thecauseoffailureofdifferenttypesofbuildingsundersevereseismicexcitations.Massivedestructionofhigh‐riseaswellaslow‐risebuildingsinrecentdevastatingearthquakeprovesthatindevelopingcountieslikeIndia,suchinvestigationistheneed of the hour. Hence, seismic behavior of asymmetricbuildingstructureshasbecomeatopicofworldwideactiveresearch. Many Investigations have been conducted onelastic and inelastic seismic behavior of asymmetricsystems to find out the cause of seismic vulnerability ofsuch structures. The purpose of the paper is to performlinear static analysis ofmedium height RC buildings andinvestigate the changes in structural behavior due toconsiderationofslopingground.
1.1SEISMICBEHAVIOUROFBUILDINGSONSLOPESININDIA
NorthandnortheasternpartsofIndiahavelargescalesofhilly region,whichare categorizedunderseismiczone IVand V. In this region the construction of multistory RCframedbuildingsonhillslopeshasapopularandpressingdemand, due to its economic growth and rapidurbanization. This growth in construction activity isaddingincreaseinpopulationdensity.Whileconstruction,itmustbenotedthatHillbuildingsaredifferentfromthoseinplainsi.e.,theyareveryirregularandunsymmetricalinhorizontal and vertical planes, and torsionally coupled.Since there is scarcity of plain ground in hilly areas, itobligatestheconstructionofbuildingsonslopes.
During past earthquakes, reinforced concrete (RC) framebuildingsthathavecolumnsofdifferentheightswithinonestorey, suffered more damage in the shorter columns ascompared to taller columns in the same storey. Oneexampleofbuildingswithshortcolumnsinbuildingsonaslopinggroundcanbeseeninthefigure(1)given
SUJIT KUMAR et al. DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2014
ISSN: 2348-4098 VOLUME 2 ISSUE 6 AUGUST 2014 (VER II)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY- www.ijset.in 1310
Poorearthsectiseen
Figu
HowtallStiffnlargeit.
Sevestruslopforcestudvario
ChensystegrouutilizsupegrouUtiliof aresusupegrou
Chanthe
Figure1:
rbehaviorofhquake,atallionmove honfromthegiv
ure2:Structu
wever, the shcolumn, annessofacolueristhestiffn
eral studiesctural perfoing ground.e, moment sdiedformoreousslopeofg
n and Constaem deliberatund storey ozes Teflonerstructure.und story duzing thiscona multistoryults show thaerstructure wundstorey.
ndrasekarandesign ofmu
Buildingfram
fshortcolumlcolumnandorizontally byvenfigure(2)
uralbehaviorloa
hort columnnd it attractumnmeansrness,largeris
have beenormance ofThe effect insupport reacrealisticanaground.
antinou (199tely introducof structuressliders toEnergy dissuctile columnncept theseisframe are aat it is possiwhile maint
andRao(20ulti‐ storied
mewithshort
nsisduetotdashortcolumy same amou)below.
ofshortcoluad
is stiffer asts larger earesistancetostheforcere
n made tobuilding fran terms of action, and dalysistoquan
98) studied tces flexibilitywas describcarry a
sipation is pns and by thsmicresponsanalyzed andible to provitaining the
Kadid A. anpushover anperformanceearthquakesbuildings wanalyzed.Thcompare thdisplacemendesigned fraSome of thepushoveranlinearandno
AbuL.(2010buildingusinthe Indian s1893), the sandtheaverthe soil typmodificationplaneandslhas been mspecific soilandIV,studyrespect to dandMeghalato analyzeSTAADProV
concrete mmodel asy are model frame systegles 5o, 10o,thecountryrce, shear foramandsuppheIS:1893–
G. (2004) preerformed onnfigurationslldingandSetludingtorsionnse spectrumi.e. fundamnt and, theave been sfabuildingcthatStepbactableonslopi
nd Boumrkiknalysis wase of frameds.Slopinggrowith 5, 8 anheresultsobthe axial font, base shames will pee conclusionnalysisisareonlinearbeh
0)studiedthngSiteRespostandard forseismic forcerageresponsepes at twenn dependinglopinggrounmade to geneparametersythevariatiodifferent slopayaarethegesome structuV8i.
(2010) stuulti stories Rlves the anarheightsandftware toolousgraphswmaximum
maximum te stress beindandsloping
multi‐storiedstructural sled as two‐dems are in p, and 15o. Aforseismicfrce,moment,portreaction2002tothe
esented then 24 RC blike,Stepbactbackbuildinnaleffecthasmmethod. Thental timebase shear
studied withconfigurationckSetbackbingground.
k A. (2005) scarried oubuildings unundareconsnd 12 storietainedinthesorce, bendiear and sherform well uns made bylativelysimphaviorofBuild
eAnalysisofonsespectraEarthquake
e depends oneaccelerationnty meterupon the ded. In thetheerate responsforsomesiteonoftopstorping angle i.eeneratedrespures using c
udied the DeRCC buildingalysis of simdvaryingnoSTAAD Pro.
buildings aystems fordimensional oplane and sloAnalyze mulforcesandco, nodal displcompared tolastversion
results fromuildings witckbuilding;Sngarepresensbeencarriehe dynamic rperiod, top
r action indh referenceonslopingg
buildingsare
studied expet with a stnder futuresiderthethrees respectivesethreebuildng momenthows thatunder seismthe authorsplewaytoexpdings.
fearthquakemethod.Accoresistant den the zone fancoefficientdepth withepth of foundirstudiedanse spectra ues in seismicreydisplaceme. Arunachalponsespectrcommercial
esign of Earon a slopingmple 2‐D frofbaysusin. Using theetweenthem, maximumce and md for the fr
are veryanalysis.or three‐ope withltistoriedomparingacement,ocurrentIS:1893‐
m seismicth threeStepbacknted.3–Dedoutbyresponsep storeyduced into the
ground.Itfoundto
erimentaltudy theexpectedeeframedely weredingsandt, nodalproperlyic codes. are theplorethe
resistantordingtoesign (IS:actor (Z)(Sa/g)ofsuitabledation innattemptusing sitec zone IIImentwithPradesh
raisusedsoftware
rthquakeg groundrames ofngaveryanalysis
maximumbending
maximumames on
SUJIT KUMAR et al. DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2014
ISSN: 2348-4098 VOLUME 2 ISSUE 6 AUGUST 2014 (VER II)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY- www.ijset.in 1311
Balaji K.V.G.D (2011) studied the non‐linear analysis ofvarioussymmetricandasymmetricstructuresconstructedon plain as well as sloping grounds subjected to variouskinds of loads. Different structures constructed on planegroundand inclined groundof30o slope is considered inthe study. Various structures are considered in plansymmetryandalsoasymmetrywithdifferenceinbaysizesin mutual directions. The analysis has been carried outusingSAP‐2000andETABSsoftware.
Mohammed U. and Farooque P. (2012) studied thebuildings on hill differ from other buildings. The variousfloors of such building steps back towards the hill slopeand at the same time buildings may have setbacks also.Buildingssituatedinhillyareasaremuchmorevulnerabletoseismicenvironment.Inthisstudytheeffectofvaryingheightofcolumnsingroundstoreyduetoslopinggroundand the effect of shear wall at different positions duringearthquake. Seismic analysis has been done using LinearStatic, Linear Dynamic method and evaluated usingpushoveranalysisEightStoriedbuilding.
KeyvanRamin(2013) studiedtheexperimentalmodelingand numerical modeling for a four‐story reinforcedconcretebuildingthattheanalysisofsimple3‐Dframesofvarying floor heights and varying number of bays withdifferent slope angles using a very popular software toolSTAADPro.onbothaslopingandaflat lot.AlsoSap2000softwarehadbeenusedtoshowthat thedisplacementoffloors is greater for a flat lot building than a sloping lotbuilding.
PradeepKumarRamancharla(2013)studiedthebehaviorofabuildingonvaryingslopeanglesi.e.,15°,30°and45°isstudied using shear wall in different location andcompared with the same on the flat ground. Building isdesignedasper IS456and latersubjected toearthquakeloads.
The salient objectives of the present study have been tostudy the effect of sloping groundon structural forces incriticalhorizontalreaction,bendingmomentinfootingandcriticalaxialforce,bendingmomentincolumns.2.METHODOLOGY
Thispresentworkdealswithstudyofbehaviorofslopingground building frames considering different inclination(7.5o, 15o) under earthquake forces. The comparison ofsloping ground and plane ground building under seismicforcesisdone.HereG+4storeyistakenandsameliveloadis applied in three the buildings for its behavior andcomparison.
The framedbuildingsaresubjected tovibrationsbecauseof earthquake and therefore seismic analysis is essentialfor these building frames. The fixed base system isanalyzedbyemployinginthreebuildingframesinseismiczoneIVbymeansofSTAADPro.Software.Theresponseofthree the building frames is studied for usefulinterpretationofresults.
2.1STEPSFORCOMPARISON
Comparisons of results in terms of horizontal reaction,
Step‐1 Selection of building geometry and Seismic zone:The behavior of three the models is studied for seismiczone IV of India as per IS code 1893 (Part 1):2002 forwhichzonefactor(Z)is0.24.
Step‐2Formationofloadcombination
Types of Primary Loads and Load Combinations: ThestructuralsystemsaresubjectedtoPrimaryLoadCasesasper IS 875:1987 and IS 1893:2002.Six primary load caseandthirteenloadcombinationsusedforanalysis.
Step‐3 Modelling of building frames using STADD Pro.Software
Step‐4 Analysis of three the building frames are doneunderseismiczoneIVforeachloadcombination.
Step‐5 Comparative study of results in terms of bendingmomentsandhorizontal force in footings, axial forceandbendingmomentincolumns.
3.MODELLING
STAAD Pro. Software is used in modeling of buildingframes. STAAD stands for Structural analysis and designProgramanditisgeneralpurposesoftwareforperformingtheanalysisanddesignofawidevarietyofstructures.Thebasicactivitieswhicharetobecarriedouttoachievethisgoal:
a.Geometryofthestructure
b.Providingmaterialandmemberproperties
c.Applyingloadsandsupportconditions
3.1NOMENCLATUREOFSTRUCTURALMODELS
Apropernomenclatureforjointandmembersnumberingis very important as it gives the exact idea where thejoint/memberislocatedintheentirestructure.Thenodes,beams and columns numbering is according to the floornumbergivenintables.
Table‐1Numberingofnodesinstructure
NodeNo. Location
1‐25 Belowplinthlevel
51‐90 plinthlevel
101‐125 1ststorey
201‐225 2ndstorey
301‐325 3rdstorey
401‐425 4thstorey
Table‐2Numberingofcolumnsinstructure
ColumnsNo Location
1‐25Below plinthlevel
101‐125 1ststorey
SUJIT KUMAR et al. DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2014
ISSN: 2348-4098 VOLUME 2 ISSUE 6 AUGUST 2014 (VER II)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY- www.ijset.in 1312
4.ST
Struin pslop
201
301
401
Table‐3
Beam
51‐9
151
251
351
451
Figure
TRUCTURA
cturalmodellan, elevatioinggroundst
‐225
‐325
‐425
Numberingo
msNo
90
‐190
‐290
‐390
‐490
3:Nodenum
ALMODELS
ls fordifferen and 3D sttructuresinF
2ndstorey
3rdstorey
4thstorey
ofbeamsins
Location
plinthlevel
1ststorey
2ndstorey
3rdstorey
4thstorey
mberinginstr
ntslopinggrtructural modFig.4to7.
structure
ructure
roundareshdel of plane
hownand
Figure5
Figure.6:3
Figure4:Pl
5:Elevationo
3Dstructural
lanofbuildin
fplanegroun
modelofplaframe
ngframe
ndbuildingfr
anegroundbu
rame
uilding
SUJIT KUMAR et al. DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2014
ISSN: 2348-4098 VOLUME 2 ISSUE 6 AUGUST 2014 (VER II)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY- www.ijset.in 1313
SUJIT KUMAR et al. DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2014
ISSN: 2348-4098 VOLUME 2 ISSUE 6 AUGUST 2014 (VER II)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY- www.ijset.in 1314
Theresultsofvariousanalysesfordifferentgroundslopes(0o, 7.5o, 15o) are presented and a comparative studybetween results of different slopes and plane ground ismadetoanalysestheeffectofslopinggroundonstructuralforces. In the present work horizontal reaction andbendingmoment in footingofstructure,bendingmomentin columns are compared for different ground slopesunder different seismic loads. The analysis resultsobtained in Staad Pro. are shown below in the form oftablesandgraphs.
5.1FOOTINGREACTIONINTHEBUILDINGFRAME
The footing reaction in the building frame systemdue tovarious analyses in terms of horizontal reaction, andComparison of horizontal reaction Fx (kN) in footing forvariousgroundslopesunderseismicloadsinX‐direction.
25 EQX ‐29.21 1.18 4.52 ‐0.04 ‐0.15Table‐7depicts thathorizontalreaction in footingsvariessignificantlyforvariousgroundslopesunderseismicloadinXdirection.SLOPE7.50providessignificantvariationof‐0.04 to3.08 times in the footingreaction (Fx) comparedtoSLOPE0o.Themaximumincreaseinratio3.08timesisfoundinfootingslocatedatlesserdepth(i.e.footingF1,F6,F11,F16andF21)whereasthemaximumdecreaseinratio
ofnearly‐0.04timesisfoundinfootingslocatedathigherdepth (i.e. footing F5, F10, F15, F20 and F25). Themaximumhorizontalreaction(Fx)infootingforSLOPE00is ‐45.17kN is found in footingF12andF14whereasthemaximumhorizontalreactioninfootingforSLOPE7.50is‐93.04 kN is found in footing F11. The sloping groundcausesincreaseoffootingreaction(Fx)forfootingslocated
SUJIT KUMAR et al. DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2014
ISSN: 2348-4098 VOLUME 2 ISSUE 6 AUGUST 2014 (VER II)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY- www.ijset.in 1315
SLOPE15o provides significant variation of 0.04 to 4.21times in the footinghorizontal reaction (Fx)compared toSLOPE 0o. The maximum increase in ratio 4.21 times isfoundinfootingslocatedatlesserdepth(i.e.footingF1,F6,F11,F16andF21)whereasthemaximumdecreasein
ratio of nearly 0.04 times is found in footings located athigher depth (i.e. footing F4, F9, F14, F19 and F24). Themaximumfootinghorizontalreaction(Fx)forSLOPE00is‐45.17 kN is found in footing F12 and F14 whereas the
maximumfootingreaction forSLOPE150 is ‐127.45kNisfound in footingF11.The slopinggroundcauses increaseoffootingreaction(Fx)forfootingslocatedatlesserdepthwhereas it decreases this value for footing located athigher depth. The maximum horizontal reaction (Fx) infootings value increases at lesser depth and maximumdeceases valueathigherdepth.Themaximumhorizontalreaction (Fx) in footings value significant change inearthquakeinZ‐direction.
Comparison of bending moment Mz (kN‐m) reaction infootingsinslopinggroundforvariousanalysesisdepictedintable8
25 EQX 83.31 28.46 8.29 0.34 0.10Table‐8depictsthatbendingmomentreactionin footingsvaries significantly for various ground slopes underseismicloadinXdirection.SLOPE7.50providessignificantvariationof0.34to1.62timesinthefootingreaction(Mz)compared to SLOPE 0o. The maximum increase in ratio1.62timesisfoundinfootingslocatedatlesserdepth(i.e.footingF1, F6, F11, F16 andF21)whereas themaximum
decrease inratioofnearly0.34times is found in footingslocatedathigherdepth(i.e. footingF5,F10,F15,F20andF25).
Table‐10depicts thatbendingmoment in columnsvariessignificantlyforvariousgroundslopesunderseismicloadinXdirection.SLOPE7.50providessignificantvariationof0.11to1.75timesinthebendingmomentincolumn(Mz)compared to SLOPE 0o. The maximum increase in ratio1.75timesisfoundincolumnslocatedatlesserdepth(i.e.column C11) below plinth level. Whereas the maximumdecreaseinratio0.11timesisfoundincolumnslocatedatintermediate depth (i.e. column C2, C7 and C12) belowplinth level. The maximum bending moment in column(Mz) for SLOPE 00 is 92.82kN‐m is found in column (i.e.C12) whereas themaximum bendingmoment in columnforSLOPE7.50is150.39kN‐misfoundincolumnC11.Thesloping ground causes increase in bending moment forcolumns locatedat lesserdepthwhereas itdecreasesthis
value for column located at higher depth below plinthlevel.
SLOPE 150 provides significant variation of ‐0.05 to 2.12timesinthebendingmomentincolumn(Mz)comparedtoSLOPE 0o. The maximum increase in ratio 2.12 times isfoundincolumnslocatedatlesserdepth(i.e.columnC11)belowplinthlevelWhereasthemaximumdecreaseinratio‐0.05times is found in columns located at intermediatedepth(i.e.columnC2,C7andC12)belowplinthlevel.
Themaximumbendingmomentincolumn(Mz)forSLOPE00is92.82kN‐misfoundincolumn(i.e.C12)whereasthemaximum bending moment in column for SLOPE 150 is182.88kN‐m is found in columnC11. The sloping groundcauses increase of bending moment in column (Mz) forcolumns locatedat lesserdepthwhereas itdecreasesthisvalue for column located at higher depth in belowplinth
SUJIT KUMAR et al. DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2014
ISSN: 2348-4098 VOLUME 2 ISSUE 6 AUGUST 2014 (VER II)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY- www.ijset.in 1318
level. BendingmomentMz (kN‐m) in columnsbelowandaboveplinthlevelforvariousgroundslopesunderseismicloadsinZ‐directionisminutelyaffected.
5.2CRITICALFORCESINCOLUMNOFBUILDINGFRAME
Comparison of critical axial forces Fx (kN) and bendingmomentMz(kN‐m)incolumnsforvariousgroundslopesarediscussedforvariousanalyses.
Table‐11depictsthatcriticalbendingmomentMz(kN‐m)in the column increases significantlywith change in ratioof1.97times forslopingground(15o)comparedtoplaneground. However critical value of vertical reaction incolumnremainsalmostsamefordifferentgroundslopes.
Figure 15: Comparison of critical bending moment incolumn between plane and sloping grounds (7.5o, 15o)buildings
Figure 16: Comparison of critical axial force in columnbetweenplaneandslopinggrounds(7.5o,15o)buildingsFigure 17 and figure18 shows the bending moment inplane ground and sloping ground (15o) building changesaccordinglyvaryingdepth.Graphsshowsclearthathigherbendingmomentinsmallerdepthsideanddecreaseswithincreaseindepth.0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Plane ground Sloping ground 7.5 Sloping ground 15
Bending moment (kN‐m
)
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
Plane ground Sloping ground 7.5 Sloping ground 15
Axial Force (kN
)
SUJIT KUMAR et al. DATE OF PUBLICATION: SEPTEMBER 01, 2014
ISSN: 2348-4098 VOLUME 2 ISSUE 6 AUGUST 2014 (VER II)
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE, ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY- www.ijset.in 1319
F
Fi
6.C
The
a)
b)
Figure17:Ben
igure18:Bend
ONCLUSION
followingcon
Thecriticalhfootingincreslope. Howefooting remslopes.Thecriticalbsignificantlyplanegroundcolumn rem